Really good read! Just got it today, I allways keep a book in the craper to pass time, Got 2 chapters in and looked up and i had been in the bath room for a hour and half! Yes it's that good, he takes no sides, picks on both the right and left, and even takes shots at the center. Vary vary good read. Seems to be a little chaty some times but thats the only problem i have had with it so far.

Really good read! Just got it today, I allways keep a book in the craper to pass time, Got 2 chapters in and looked up and i had been in the bath room for a hour and half! Yes it's that good, he takes no sides, picks on both the right and left, and even takes shots at the center. Vary vary good read. Seems to be a little chaty some times but thats the only problem i have had with it so far.

Sounds more like some "recycling" that environmental extremists could get on board with. Their unreasonable restrictions on becoming energy independent are what makes outlandish ideas like this possible to begin with. You can tell what kind of close-minded, irrational people you're dealing with when they describe the proposed "Keystone Pipeline" this way:

Quote:

wvwarface wrote: If you are still going against your brethern, you won't say that allowing the Canadian Oil Sludge Pipeline,

That tells all you need to know about how extreme they would like to see government regulations go in undermining our chances for energy independence. All rhetoric and no common sense.

I have heard so many conservatives (not just WVMan) on WMITC accuse Obama of being responsible for putting so many folks on food stamps that I decided to check out their claims. Turns out (not surprisingly) that they are misinformed.

Turns out that more Americans were put on food stamps by George W. Bush then under any other President in history. Also turns out that the number of people on welfare and food stamps is actually DECLINING since late last year and this trend is expected to continue. Not coincidentally, the rise and decline of people receiving food stamps is directly related to the strength of the economy, and as the economy is getting better people are finding work and getting off of food stamps. While Obama's stimulus package did increase benefits temporarily, the reason for this package was because HE INHERITED THE SECOND WORST ECONOMY IN US HISTORY. Had the economy been strong when he took office, a stimulus package wouldn't even have been on the table.

And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s.

Wasn't Bush in office longer than Obama? Are they comparing the increase that occurred with Obama in three years to the eight years under a former President? I can see why the discrepancy in the numbers is there. An unfair comparison maybe, but there.

southwvboy wrote:ahh phuk more , he inherited the worst country ever. He inherited lower unemployment, a lower deficit and cheaper gas too, but wtf happened there?

George W. Bush inherited an unemployment rate of almost zero, a balanced budget, cheaper gas (if you even want to involve that), and a regulated banking system that wasn't allowed to run amuck to the point it almost destroyed the single greatest nation in the world.

And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s.

Wasn't Bush in office longer than Obama? Are they comparing the increase that occurred with Obama in three years to the eight years under a former President? I can see why the discrepancy in the numbers is there. An unfair comparison maybe, but there.

Keep reading and you will see:

Quote:

It’s possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then.

Update, Feb. 5: Revised USDA data released in February showed the downward trend continued for a second straight month in November, when the number of persons getting food stamps was 134,418 fewer than it had been at the peak.

Apparently Obama's numbers are now shrinking rather than rising. You are right that to compare President by President then you should compare a full term to a full term, but the data shows a shrinking trend in the current numbers. The bigger point is that the accusations that Obama is trying to increase the food stamp ledgers because of some perverse socialist agenda is ludicrous and nonsensical. The increases are due to the economy. Neither Obama nor Bush were out signing people up for welfare, and neither thinks it is a long-term solution. If you read the full article you will see that nearly all of the measures related to SNAP (the new moniker for "food stamps") had broad bi-partisan support. Increases are also due to actions by states to better implement the programs and the reduced social stigma attached to receiving benefits. The debate about whether the federal government should provide these entitlements is legitimate. It is also interesting to note that 49% of the recipients were white, contrary to "common knowledge."

08WVUEer wrote: George W. Bush inherited an unemployment rate of almost zero, a balanced budget, cheaper gas (if you even want to involve that), and a regulated banking system that wasn't allowed to run amuck to the point it almost destroyed the single greatest nation in the world.

And then, the American people decided to give the liberal democrats control of Congress. You know, control of the purse strings, expansion of government, and oversight(?) on entities like Fannie and Freddie. The economy went downhill from there. Many of those democrats also voted to go to those wars, too. Coincidence?

Apparently Obama's numbers are now shrinking rather than rising. You are right that to compare President by President then you should compare a full term to a full term, but the data shows a shrinking trend in the current numbers.

So, they are extrapolating "projected" figures to come to a conclusion that's supposed to be based on fact? Or at least is being presented as fact? Given that scenario and method, you could make the numbers say anything. Couldn't you?

Apparently Obama's numbers are now shrinking rather than rising. You are right that to compare President by President then you should compare a full term to a full term, but the data shows a shrinking trend in the current numbers.

So, they are extrapolating "projected" figures to come to a conclusion that's supposed to be based on fact? Given that scenario and method, you could make the numbers say anything. Couldn't you?

No, that isn't what they were doing at all. They were checking whether Gingrich's statement that more people have been put on food stamps under Obama than under any other President was true and concluded that it wasn't true. At the time they originally wrote the article, they said it might be true in the future because the trend was rising. They later updated the article to note that the trend had changed and was now decreasing, making it less likely that it would ever be true. They have not projected any numbers at all.